6) The evidence on record let in by the parties also covers in support of the rival contentions. In view of the above, it is by considering the D.N.A test for paternity determination is required, the lower Court allowed the petition and how far while sitting in revision this Court can interfere is the issue. Needless to repeat the factual matrix referred supra but for to say the respondent seriously disputes his relationship with M.C-petitioners as detailed above the the latest expression of the Apex Court by the two Judges bench in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik V. Lata nandlal Badwai k[1] laid down the law by scanning the entire case law on the factual dispute relating to the disputed legitimacy of child in the maintenance case filed by the wife for herself and for the daughter, the husband since disputes the paternity saying the child was not born to him; in holding that under Sections 4 and 101 to 117 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in particular, Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act while the truth or fact is known, there is no need or room for any presumption, interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the Court should be furnished with the best available science to the facts in issue and when there is a conflict between a ‘conclusive proof’ envisaged under law based on a presumption (section 4 read with Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and a proof based on scientific advancement (DNA) accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former and such scientific proof provided by DNA test report is acceptable against presumption of legitimacy of child to rebut conclusively. Hence, a direction to the appellant-husband to pay maintenance for the child is held set aside
